The Truth about Fast & Furious

[gejohnston]

93. Project much?

I know how to go to the supporting documents to see if the citation supports the claim. I also know giving some freelance writer access to personnel records or records that are classified or For Official Use Only is a crime. She makes a lot claims with subjective language, but I'm not seeing anything to back it up. Simply saying "I investigated" doesn't cut it. She accused Dodson and other whistle blowers of committing felonies, I hope she can back it up. If Dodson is anything like me, her lawyer would be meeting my lawyer. Voth would be meeting my lawyer for violating the Privacy Act by giving her access to personnel records, or any personal information, without his permission.

Do you really think that this is a non-partisan document, and that the names of Issa and Grassley just happen to be on it because they are the committee chairs? LOL.

No, but I do read the cited sources. That is the difference. That is what scientific minded people do. I spent enough years writing similar reports, with footnotes for source documents.

None of your "facts" are actual facts. This is just standard partisan politics: a detailed investigative report comes out with evidence that refutes some of the misinformation that the GOP has been peddling about F&F, and so they issue a propaganda document purporting to discredit the report.

No, go to the primary source documents that are attached. That is the evidence.

I'm supposed to ignore that for claimed evidence, not presented but claimed, based on information from a whistle blower target? If this evidence is real, let's see the primary sources. Oh yeah, they were "confidential", as in she had no legal right to see them. When is Eban going to include copies of these documents she had access to? Oh wait, that would cause a world of shit like someone going to jail or getting the shit sued out of them. Or are they simply claims made on Voth's lawyer's stationary? Is Dodson's personnel folder part of those records? For her and Voth's sake, better not be. Like I said, that is violating the Privacy Act.
You don't know subjective language from what primary source documents? Can't help you other than suggest you take a high school comp class. Maybe taking a critical thinking class would help too.

So once again, you use call names, use logical fallacies and can't point to anything to support her or your claims.